What is the Gospel?

[God's Truth]

Ah, now here is that "Other Gospel" Paul was talking about. :readthis:

There is no other gospel. Paul taught the same gospel that Jesus and the other apostles taught.

The old law of works for getting cleaned and justified:

Circumcision, diet, external washings, the sacrifice of animals...

The new work for getting justified:

Have faith that Jesus' blood cleans you and justifies.


That is why Paul said no more of works.

The ceremonial works.

 

[God's Truth]

Hi GT. If I can jump in on Sonnet's and AMR's interchange, you can certainly comment on my post.

I didn't notice. Thanks!

(my bolding in your quote) I don't disagree that there is an aspect of the resurrection that manifests itself in our current lives. But the "first" resurrection as described by John in the following verses is clearly not that, unless you can chop off a spirit's head:

[Rev 20:4 KJV]
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.[Rev 20:5 KJV]
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
[Rev 20:6 KJV]
Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Look a little more carefully, it is a vision of what would happen.

The only way a person would not be part of the second death is if they were part of the first resurrection. The only way a person can get out of the second death is to be saved, and that must be the first resurrection. There just is no other way.

Since you acknowledge that the "first resurrection" participants are not harmed by the second death (from Rev 20:6), and you acknowledge that Rev 20 is talking about the first resurrection (from Rev 20:5), then you must either acknowledge (from Rev 20:4) that the "first resurrection" participants have physically died prior to their resurrection (thus the need for it), or you must acknowledge that there are a bunch of Christians running around without heads. I haven't noticed the latter, but perhaps I'm going to the wrong churches.

We die physically but our spirits live on to either be with Jesus or to go to prison/hell.

The beheaded is a vision of what would happen to those who love Jesus to the point of death. That is what happens to them physically, but their spirit lives on in heaven with Jesus after the death of their physical bodies.

Plus, if we are already resurrected "in spirit", but we still die physically (I don't think you will deny such), then we still need some kind of physical resurrection, unless our hope is in vain.

Of course, the physical resurrection is where we are given new physical bodies.
Some will be raised to eternal life with Jesus, and the rest will be raised to eternal condemnation in the lake of fire, the second death.

Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

That gospel chapter [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] quoted numerous times is clear that we are being saved from death, and not from some other thing. Which I think we can all admit is good news. I would suggest it's the very best news, and worthy to be called "The Gospel".

We are being saved from a spiritual death in hell.

And if we need some kind of resurrection after the first resurrection, which you allocate to a spiritual one, what would it be called? Maybe "second resurrection"? Revelation doesn't name anything by that title, but ch 20 continues with a description of a second resurrection, putting the "first" in proper context.

You just said Revelation doesn't name anything as second resurrection, but then you acknowledge there is one. Could you clarify why you first said there was no second resurrection?

If, however, the first is a spiritual one, and a second one (physical one) is needed, then the participants of the first are being judged after the second, which is clearly a physical one, after they have "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years", to see if they are in the book of life (Rev 20:15). Does that make sense to you?

Derf

Good question. Some will be judged who came out of prison/hell perhaps, and the saved will receive their inheritance, while the others are cast into the lake of fire.
I am glad for deep discussions on the Bible, so please elaborate on why you agree or do not.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Ephesians 6:8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Ah, now here is that "Other Gospel" Paul was talking about. :readthis:

That all yuh got? opcorn:

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus IS the resurrection.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;

Which isn't what we were talking about, but you notice what He says there? The one who BELIEVES will live...not the one who "Obeys" as you claim.

 

[glorydaz]

There is no other gospel. Paul taught the same gospel that Jesus and the other apostles taught.

The old law of works for getting cleaned and justified:

Circumcision, diet, external washings, the sacrifice of animals...

The new work for getting justified:

Have faith that Jesus' blood cleans you and justifies.


That is why Paul said no more of works.

The ceremonial works.

Paul says there is, and it's the one you preach.

Obey, repent, forgive others, be water baptised.....all in order to be saved.

That's the works of man, GT.

 

[Sonnet]

:chuckle: You wish.

This is very simple....those who preach and believe the Gospel are entitled to use the word "OUR SINS", because we have believed.

We have no business preaching the Gospel unless it's based on the word BELIEVE.

Where, pray tell, is that word BELIEVE in this verse? opcorn:

1 Corinthians 15:3
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:​

Paul alluded to what he had preached previously, just as I did for you, but you chose to IGNORE it. Why? Because it would prove you wrong, and expose your aim is deception and deceit.

This text in Acts is what Paul speaks of in the first two verses of 1 Cor. 15, but you don't want to address that, do you? Why do you skip right over it....as if it was not part of the Gospel he is preaching in 1 Cor. 15:3? I know why, and it doesn't come from honest "seeking".

I affirm that I am a genuine seeker after Christ.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

How they had believed in this basic fact of the dbr for the justification of SINS. Those who reject that WORK OF THE CROSS, will die in their sins unless they believe.


Now you've beat this dead horse until the only thing left is bones. Can you really be this dense? When you take verses out of their context, you miss the whole truth. :nono:

I do intend and want to respond to the specifics of your post - but in the interest of avoiding any misunderstanding would you please clarify if you would or would not tell unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins' such that they are never disabused of the understanding that they themselves (each one of them) are included in the 'our' you speak of and therefore consider you have told each of them that Christ died for their sins. (It can be assumed they are told that they must believe it, but that their understanding is that Christ has acted so irrespective of faith - rather like the analogy Jesus uses himself in John 3:14-16, with the bronze serpent raised for all, without exception, to look to if they so choose).

I affirm that I am a genuine seeker after Christ.

 

[glorydaz]

That all yuh got? opcorn:

I do, but I'm afraid the Mad Dog of TOL may jump out of the bushes and rend me with his slavering vengeful jaws. :shut:

 

[Sonnet]

Paul says there is, and it's the one you preach.

Obey, repent, forgive others, be water baptised.....all in order to be saved.

That's the works of man, GT.

Luke 24:46-47
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

[glorydaz]

I do intend and want to respond to the specifics of your post - but in the interest of avoiding any misunderstanding would you please clarify if you would or would not tell unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins' such that they are never disabused of the understanding that they themselves (each one of them) are included in the 'our' you speak of and therefore consider you have told each of them that Christ died for their sins. (It can be assumed they are told that they must believe it, but that their understanding is that Christ has acted so irrespective of faith - rather like the analogy Jesus uses himself in John 3:14-16, with the bronze serpent raised for all, without exception, to look to if they so choose).

Actually that analogy is perfect. Those who look will live.

You should be aware that it says nothing about their ability to look, does it? It's just a statement of fact, that those who do look do live. The first step we take outside what is clearly written leads to all sorts of disagreements. Which is the point I was trying to make. The Gospel is very simple. Those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross will be saved.

That is exactly what I would tell them. Those who believe will be saved.

You really can't separate belief and faith from Christ's work on the Cross. No matter how hard you try to do so. There is a reason Paul told them to remember what he had said before, and it's critical for understanding the verse you keep quoting.

The shed blood is only effectual when it's accessed. We see here that not ALL sins are forgiven, and those who reject Christ's work on the Cross have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:31
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.​

 

[glorydaz]

Luke 24:46-47
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached for a time afterwards....long about the time of mid Acts, then Paul began to preach the Gospel of Grace as the RISEN LORD instructed him to. Not the same Gospel.

 

[glorydaz]

I affirm that I am a genuine seeker after Christ.

Yeah, well I don't believe you really think you'll find Him.
"Genuine" seems a bit of an exaggerated term for what I've seen so far.

So when you go to look for gold in them thar hills, you'd best actually come with pick and shovel in hand instead of just questions.

Personally, I think you're out to prove He doesn't exist so you won't have to change.
Nope, no gold here.


You will never find Him with your intellect...searching for God is a matter of the heart. A matter of humility not haughtiness.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.​

 

[Sonnet]

The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached for a time afterwards....long about the time of mid Acts, then Paul began to preach the Gospel of Grace as the RISEN LORD instructed him to. Not the same Gospel.

That didn't prove your assertion. Jesus's words contain no caveat.

 

[blackbirdking]

Can my words be any plainer?

Imagine a pastor in the pulpit, looking down at Bob in the pew and saying, "Bob, Jesus Christ died for you."
If Jesus did in fact die for Bob, then Bob will be saved in the time appointed by God.
If Jesus did not in fact die for Bob, then Bob will not be saved...ever.

You can say this because you believe Jesus is not the way for all men.

So the pastor making this statement is either a liar half the time or a wonderful prophet half the time. In other words, he is guessing by making such a definitive statement.

Now, how can the pastor make such a statement specifically to Bob unless the pastor has infallible knowledge of the will of God concerning Bob?

Exactly, according to Calvinism.

Yet, there is no doubt that these sort of things are actually stated from pulpits today. It is because of a lack of understanding of what the atonement of Jesus Christ actually accomplished. It was not a potential atonement, but an actual atonement. God's wrath was not potentially propitiated, but actually propitiated. For whom? Those that believe, the believing ones. Not for those that do not believe. If Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind, then all mankind will be saved.

Only by Calvinism; you don't believe the sacrifice was for all those condemned by Adam's offence.

Obviously, all are not saved, so that sacrifice cannot possibly be for all mankind. If Jesus' sacrifice truly propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind, then those in Hell are being unjustly punished, for their debts owed have been fully paid by Jesus' sacrifice. This is manifest nonsense.

Only for the narrow minded; take off your glasses.

The scope of the atonement of Jesus encompasses all who have, are, or will believe upon Him. Was the atonement capable of saving all of mankind? Indeed. But the issue here is not the value of the atonement, but its actual scope, as the nicely worded statement below indicates:

GD bit into your apple and got hooked.

I cannot make these things more plain. If you have an actual follow up question, make it plain and concise. I will try to answer it.

AMR

...Imputation--everyone loves it in the second instance: Christ obedient for me, and punished for me.
So, why are they so squeamish about being judged guilty on account of their representative, Adam? :idunno:...

You do know why; imputation is not what you say it is. There is no "second instance" for those "being judged guilty on account of their representative, Adam", and you know this is more than being "so squeamish"; it describes the character of God. Why feign innocence?

You have learned well that which you've been taught by men, but you can't rationalize good enough to keep the character of God Biblical; Sonnet can see this.

After all, they made something of the grace given to them (the same grace given to all), while their doltish neighbor did not. Good for them! :AMR:

AMR

Ah yes, "doltish" Adam. God created a "doltish" Adam for His own pleasure and claimed to have created that man in His own 'image and likeness'; then, He ended up by damning most of His own offspring because He created them "doltish". To top it all off, he called that whole plan 'good'.

Or maybe:
God created a man in His own image and likeness who was not "doltish", but was instead predestined to sin in order to fulfill God's plan of bringing a curse onto all of creation, damning most of His own offspring, then dubbing that whole scheme 'good'.

The most interesting part is that God receives pleasure from the creation of men who are predestined to damnation; really twisted.

Why not:
Everybody read the Bible for themselves since it is the 'Word of God'; it doesn't need man's interpretation. However, we all still want to interpret the 'Word of God' for everybody else, ha, and play God; just like Sat...

 

[blackbirdking]

Paul seems to agree. "ALL THAT BELIEVE".

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Jesus came to remove the condemnation of Adam's offence.

I would tell a crowd of people that Jesus's death was sufficient for all, but not effectual for all. Only those who believe have forgiveness of sin. To say otherwise would be universal salvation.

No; He died to remove that condemnation for all men. Adam's sin is not the only sin a man has to deal with; every man has his own also.

That Jesus died for the sins of the world means the way has been made for salvation and forgiveness of sins.

Exactly; without Jesus the "the way" wouldn't exist for every man. Jesus died for every man.

(The prison door has been opened.) Christ's death is the Grace of God, but we do not access that Grace except through faith.

Opened the door for every man; to give them a way in; or rather, a way out (of the condemnation of Adam's offence).

Christ died for those who walk through the open door.

And those who don't or there wouldn't be a door.

You are simply straining at gnats and swallowing camels. :nono:

No he's not, your being narrow minded. Jesus did more than one thing. He opened the door for all, all who believe, will be saved.

You've linked onto another man's gospel, Calvinism.

 

[meshak]

I affirm that I am a genuine seeker after Christ.

If you are sincere, you will read what Jesus has to say about Him and His messages by reading His word instead of getting third information from others..

It is all in the New Testament.

 

[Right Divider]

You've linked onto another man's gospel, Calvinism.

:rotfl:
She is anything but a Calvinist.

 

[Right Divider]

If you are sincere, you will read what Jesus has to say about Him and His messages by reading His word instead of getting third information from others..

It is all in the New Testament.

Your favorite Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are NOT new testament.

 

[meshak]

Your favorite Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are NOT new testament.

Wow.

 

[Right Divider]

Wow.

It's all in the Bible that you mostly ignore.

Heb 9:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:16) For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (9:17) For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.​

The new testament CANNOT be in force UNTIL the death of the TESTATOR.

Therefore, the vast majority of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are CANNOT be new testament.

It's just that simple.

 

[God's Truth]

The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached for a time afterwards....long about the time of mid Acts, then Paul began to preach the Gospel of Grace as the RISEN LORD instructed him to. Not the same Gospel.

I cringe every time I hear you say Paul came with a different gospel. Jesus came with another covenant and he, only he could. Jesus is the Sacrificial LAMB OF GOD ONCE AND FOR ALL, but you have Paul coming with another gospel, just because you say so. Unbelievable.